Loading...
Cmd100422 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES October 4, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Kernen Lien, Planning Manager Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Council President Olson advised Item 9.1, Updates to Employee Reimbursement Policy, was removed from the agenda and will be brought back on a future agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ADD A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE STATE BUDGET PROVISO FOR THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PRIVILEGE RELATING TO THE OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY THAT WSDOT WILL ACQUIRE ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 2 Councilmember Buckshnis explained this is a resolution that will be sent to the State legislature. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for in-person audience comments. Becky Chandler, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, expressed concern that the Highway 99 subarea plan is insufficient in relation to the proposed 261 unit apartment building proposed in the neighborhood. Passing the emergency ordinance tonight will help address some of the issues, but it will also be important to consider a supplemental EIS to address the shortcomings of the FEIS approved in 2017. The Highway 99 subarea plan provides guidance for ensuring aesthetic appeal; this was identified as particularly important as the Gateway District was expected to incur the greatest change as a result of the zoning revision from multifamily to commercial general. The Terrace Place development is larger than any other recent project in the city, its impacts will be significant, and it is a bigger design challenge since it is not located on SR-104 or Highway 99 like most of the recent developments in Edmonds. She was not aware of any definition of a unique identity that has approved for the Gateway Subdistrict so it is impossible to know if the recent proposals are within the guidance of the subarea plan. A high level of development is occurring that will address housing needs and the Terrace Place is one of several large projects, but they want the development to align with the intent of the Highway 99 subarea and hope the council will give their concerns serious consideration as has been done for other developments in the area. She thanked everyone who has worked on the gateway project, anticipating there is a great opportunity to make it into something special for the Edmonds community. She pointed out tonight is the start of Yom Kippur so there may be people unable to attend the meeting. Shannon Demas, Edmonds, a physician at the Everett Clinic, and a resident of the Gateway District on the Highway 99, thanked the council for including the emergency ordinance for the CG zone on Highway 99 on tonight’s agenda and urged the council to pass it. She also requested a supplemental EIS for the Highway 99 Subarea be required for the EIS five-year review. This is important because of the 261 unit apartment building proposed a block away from her single family home and the absence of an opportunity to address the impacts this size building will have on a residential neighborhood. She was unaware when the subarea plan was approved in 2017 or the upzoning the plan included; she moved to the area in 2022. The FEIS for the plan includes assumptions that are no longer relevant or the identified mitigation has not been undertaken or there may be more appropriate mitigations. One of those is related to parks; the lack of parks in the Highway 99 Gateway District is noted in the subarea plan and specific actions were identified to mitigate the deficit. The actions in the plan have not been accomplished to date and the new Terrace Place development with its 261 units adds urgency to address the problem. She moved from the Northgate area to Edmonds to start a family. When she moved into her house, she realized her area was a parks desert and there have been no changes since the plan was approved in 2017 and none in sight. With the addition of the 192 unit building on Highway 99 at 234th, the lack of parks will be even more acute, even before the proposed Terrace Place apartments are constructed. A supplemental EIS is needed to reexamine the assumptions and conditions in the area and need mitigation. Jenna Nand, Edmonds, an attorney practicing in Edmonds, encouraged the council to view proposed changes to the Highway 99 community where she grew up and has lived in Shoreline and in Edmonds since she was 6 years old through a civil rights lens. This area of town generates the most tax revenue for the City which is not reflected in the way City funds and services are distributed. As a person of color who grew up along Highway 99, she believed that had a lot to do with the demographic makeup of the community and the racial and socioeconomic divide. If the council’s posture is that urban sprawl and overdevelopment should be sequestered to the Highway 99 area even though they generate more revenue Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 3 than the bowl or any other part of Edmonds, she suggested the city attorney may want to consider whether that is a possible civil rights violation . Glenn Douglas, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, thanked the council for including the emergency ordinance regarding the CG zone along Highway 99 on tonight’s agenda and urged the council to pass it. He echoed the previous comments regarding the 261 unit building proposed at 236th & 84th, noting he lives very close to that very dangerous intersection and frequently hears accidents occur. When the Gateway District was changed to a commercial zone in 2017, the Highway 99 subarea plan, identified mitigation measures to soften the transition between the CG zone and adjacent residential units. In particular, the code was to included stepbacks for buildings 75 feet high when adjacent to or across the street from single family residential buildings. The current code only has stepbacks for the adjacent side and does not include the mitigation cited in the plan for stepbacks when located across the street. The proposed Terrace Place apartments on 84th & 236th Street will be across the street from single family residential units and adjacent to 3-story condominiums. The ordinance the council will consider tonight will remedy the omission in the code to help provide the transition to single family that was intended in the subarea plan and identified as mitigation measures in the EIS. He was one of the signatories of the letter sent to council yesterday requesting a moratorium on building permits in the area until this code is reconciled with the subarea plan. Passing the ordinance tonight will address the concerns in that letter and avoid the moratorium that would otherwise be needed. Jack Malek, Shoreline, a realtor with Windermere representing Karen Wiggins in the sale of Sound View Plaza, referred to the original designated street front map and the extension in the BD2 district from mid-block 2nd Avenue south to James Street which he did not feel was appropriate for that street. The buildings in that short segment of the corridor were left off the original design for good reason; the buildings should not be limiting to just office and retail and the southern end of the block is better suited for residential. The Sound View Plaza building has been on the market for two years with no sale or lease; restricting it to office and retail is difficult without extensive tenant improvements. He encouraged the council to leave that segment off the map of the designated street front. Mayor Nelson described procedures for virtual audience comments. Will Magnuson, Edmonds, referred to the development code regarding BD zoning and asked the council to provide their full support to the Architectural Design Board’s recommendation for BD2 zoning and require the inclusion of commercial space for any new BD2 development. The core areas of Edmonds including the neighborhoods of downtown, Highway 99, Westgate and elsewhere have evolved to provide more public amenities including entertainment, recreation as well as goods and services for the community. An abundance of these treasured assets provide the synergy required to provide a truly, walkable, vibrant, safe and sustainable community. Slow but steady progress has been made toward the creation of this synergy and more work needs to be done. He liked the convenience of public and commercial amenities within convenient walking distance but more businesses and amenities are needed to provide a sustainable energy in core neighborhoods and communities. The downtown core should remain focused on the community by requiring any new development parcels to include commercial space along Main Street inclusive of parcels to Dayton Street and extending from the waterfront up to the Frances Anderson Center. Mr. Magnuson continued, any discussion regarding commercial development should focus on clarity and reliability to the citizens and community of Edmonds and developers will be fine. During his career in commercial real estate development, he learned to prioritize every development decision toward the user and property management, creating a place coveted by tenants, visitors and community alike while offering a quality project designed and built for long term maintenance and sustainability. This development focus provides a successful project for everyone including developers, bankers, investors, tenants, visitors and neighbors by providing a project which will be a long term asset to the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 4 He urged the council to support the ADB’s recommendation and implement immediate zoning for all BD2 parcels to include commercial space. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, said she was unable to be present tonight due to Yom Kippur and appreciated the opportunity to participate online. A resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, she expressed her concern about the 261 unit Terrace Place apartment building proposed in her neighborhood. She urged the council to pass the emergency ordinance on tonight’s agenda which will help address some of the issues the building creates, acknowledging the ordinance would not solve everything. The 261 unit Terrace Place development is proposed for the corner of 84th & 236th Street SW; there is an existing problem with speeding on 84th, a 2-lane very busy road with no sidewalks and 236th is used as the main road to Madrona School with a traffic light at SR-104 but no sidewalks for the students. There are twice as many accidents at the intersection of 236th & 84th as there are at the intersection of 238th & 84th. These transportation issues will be exacerbated by the traffic created by the Terrace Place development. The Hwy 99 subarea plan relies on the City’s transportation plan to provide for infrastructure improvements that mitigate the impacts of development; however, the subarea plan EIS focuses on impacts to Hwy 99 and the movement of traffic through intersections along the Highway 99. Ms. Gladstone continued, it is insufficient to address the impacts to the residential neighborhoods in the district. The assumptions and mitigation regarding transportation and pedestrian safety should be reconsidered in the FEIS five-year review that the council pulled from the agenda in August. This issue, along with others, warrant requiring either a supplemental EIS or a change to the mitigation in the subarea plan. To have any impact on the development, the council must act quickly before the building permit application is filed. Like many of her neighbors, she was unaware the area was upzoned from multifamily to general commercial in 2017. If she had been asked then if she wanted a 6-story, 261 unit building across the street from single family residents, it would have caught her attention. She assured if the council undertook a review of the plan and EIS, they would surely get more engagement from the neighborhood. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, recalled a council comment that Item 9.1 had been removed from the agenda. He was unsure why the council didn’t vote to amend the agenda after the council meeting started, noting there was no 9.1 on the online agenda. He suggested considering that and voting when the agenda is amended. Chapter 20.70 ECDC establishes the procedure and criteria that the City will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys and public easements. The City code expressly states the City vacates public easements. ECDC 20.70.060.G states an appraisal is not required if a utility easement only is proposed to be vacated. Despite this, the City has required an appraisal and can release the utility easement under State law RCW 35.94 which says nothing about the release of a utility easement, and does not include the word release or easement. RCW 35.94 talks about releasing or selling public utility works, plants or systems owned by the City. Resolution 1375 states the City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Avenue Street right-of-way as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall acknowledge in writing that upon vacation it shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities. Mr. Reidy asked whether a private party can assume ownership of public assets, public stormwater facilities located outside the street that was vacated. It had nothing to do with the street that was vacated but the City acted as if the applicant could assume ownership of stormwater facilities before the City ever talked about whether the stormwater facility assets were surplus to the City’s needs and comingled two very different things into one legislative action. There is no denying that Resolution 1375 exists, the 2016 city council adopted the resolution on November 15, 2016 with City Attorney Jeff Taraday in attendance. He encouraged the council to form a citizen taskforce to review the historical conduct of city attorneys and recommend how the City should obtain and manage legal advice. He urged the council not to co- mingle two different legislative outcomes into one vote later tonight. If the council wants to vote on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 5 something as if it is an emergency, the council should vote and if the emergency vote does not pass, there should be a second motion to pass it as a regular ordinance instead of co-mingling it. Kevin Smith, Edmonds, Economic Development Commissioner but speaking as a citizen, local business owner and CPA regarding the BD2 zoning and proposed agenda item, said the joint meeting between the planning board and EDC overwhelmingly favored extending the designated street front requirements to the entire BD2 zone and recommended addressing the long term zoning in the 2024 comprehensive plan. He supported doing that because, first, in his professional capacity as a CPA, he speaks with business owners daily. A consistent theme he hears in Edmonds is the lack of available retail space in the downtown core because as soon as retail-oriented space is opened, regardless of the configuration, it is leased. Businesses want to locate in Edmonds, new businesses and industries move in and the City is rapidly growing as a result. Second, commercial office buildings such as services are moving at a different pace. The City needs to be careful and not have a kneejerk reaction to point in time circumstances. The governor’s emergency declaration is still in place and shifts back to in-office work have been slow to occur. Additional commercial office leases are often 5-10 years old so a combination of the pandemic and lease-locked businesses has likely led to a lack of mobility in commercial office space. It would behoove the City to look toward the 2024 comprehensive plan as an ideal time to address the core long-term strategy as it will allow two years of post-pandemic economic activity to inform decisions. Mr. Smith continued, third, the downtown core has been rapidly growing over the last decade; his biggest concern was shutting out business growth through zoning changes. The inevitable consequence of such action is reducing areas for businesses of all types to locate. Fourth, major attractions will open next year, Civic Park and Main Street Commons. These will undoubtedly change consumer and commercial patterns and create new visitors and new desirability for the downtown area. Understanding those impacts needs to be considered with major changes to the zoning. He summarized major changes to the zoning structure should not be made in a vacuum and should be address through a broad process with heavy public involvement and the use of post-pandemic data. The 2024 comprehensive plan is the right move. He assured this was not an anti-housing position; housing is important and needs to be a focus area. He personally believed the most vibrant developments were those with a strong mix of commercial and residential; while it may not be the most profitable to the developer, it [inaudible] pencil out or in the best interest of the City. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Nelson for his speech and expressed appreciation for what he is doing. She agreed with the previous comments about the downtown zone. She urged the council to be careful about zoning on the hill; residents are proud of their neighborhoods and do not want 5-story buildings across the street or in their backyards either. Edmonds does not need to be like other cities; for example, Seattle is having a lot of problems like the recent shooting in Crown Hill. She urged the City to keep Edmonds the same as much as possible. She understood progress was inevitable to a point but attention needs to be paid to the entire City, not just the bowl but everywhere. She noted 84th isn’t the only place with speeding problems, people drive down 80th 60 mph day and night and she hasn’t seen a turn signal in five years. There were campers in vans on 80th last night, but she did not call the police because she didn’t want to bother them. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JEFFREY JOHNSON AND KATHLEEN BARRETT 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 6 Council President Olson relayed staff wanted to remove Item 8.2, Approve Public Water Meter Vault Easement at 23601 Highway 99, and Item 8.3, Approve Acceptance Of Public Pedestrian Easement at 23601 Highway 99, for changes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 4. RESOLUTION ON DISPOSITION OF SEWER-STORM EASEMENTS – APOLLO APARTMENTS 5. PERMANENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE STATE BUDGET PROVISO FOR THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PRIVILEGE RELATING TO THE OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY THAT WSDOT WILL ACQUIRE ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been working with Puget Sound Partnership during two meetings. The legislative session has been scheduled and the governor plans to provide his budget on October 10th so she felt it was important to pass this resolution now. The City will be working on an MOU when there is more time, likely after the budget. She read the proposed resolution into the record: RESOLUTION NO. 1508 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR RENEWAL OF THE STATE BUDGET PROVISO FOR THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PRIVILEGE RELATING TO THE OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY THAT WSDOT WILL ACQUIRE ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS MARSH-ESTUARY. WHEREAS, in 1981, the City of Edmonds was given title, free of charge to a 22.5-acre parcel now called the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary to be maintained as open space and a wildlife reserve; and WHEREAS, scientific studies have determined the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary is in desperate need of restoration and enhancement to preserve the ecological functions that support wildlife; and WHEREAS, the current configuration of the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary connection to Puget Sound is an underground 1,600-foot pipe, with a tide gate, that has deteriorated critical wildlife habitat and prevented salmon and other aquatic species from accessing the nearshore estuary and tributary streams where salmon used to spawn; and WHEREAS, in 2010, WRIA 8 (Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8) recognized the importance of the restoration of this nearshore estuary and identified it as one of their priority projects for the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon that are listed under the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, to restore an open tidal connection from the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary to Puget Sound and enhance the nearshore estuary will require the use of some or all of the old Unocal property adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary; and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 7 WHEREAS, the Washington Dept. of Transportation (WSDOT) has declared they do not intend to use the old Unocal property for relocating the Edmonds Ferry Terminal and has mothballed Edmonds Crossing and may declare the property as surplus for sale; and WHEREAS, in 2021, Washington State, through the 2021-23 biennial Transportation budget, included a proviso giving the City of Edmonds the first right of refusal on purchasing the property in response to the City’s request that the property be made available for marsh/estuary restoration and salmon recovery; and WHEREAS, Edmonds’ first right of refusal expires on June 30, 2023 and it is unlikely that WSDOT will surplus the property before that date due to the ongoing cleanup of the property that has precluded WSDOT from taking title to such property. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The Edmonds City Council hereby requests that Washington State through the 2023-2025 biennial Transportation budget, retain the right of first refusal proviso giving the City of Edmonds that right of first refusal for purchasing the property in response to the City’s request that the property be made available for marsh/estuary restoration and salmon recovery. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PRESENTATION OF CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN (SMAP) TO MEET NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla explained the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued by the Department of Ecology (DOE), requires the City manage and control stormwater runoff so that pollution to downstream waters is minimized. As part of the permit cycle, DOE added a new requirement for a Stormwater Management Action Plan (SMAP). The City retained the services of Herrera to meet this DOE requirement within the dictated timeline and keep the City’s NPDES permit compliant. Rebecca Dugopolski, Herrera Environmental Consultants, provided an update on Edmonds Stormwater Action Planning: • Project background o Driver: Municipal Stormwater Permit ▪ Stormwater planning requirements include a water health assessment, selecting a priority watershed (June 2022), and developing an implementation plan o Public Input ▪ Workshops ▪ StoryMap and Survey • Stormwater Permit History o Phase I (populations > 100,000) o Phase II (generally populations > 10,000) o Current Phase 1 and II permits issued by Ecology on July 1, 2019 ▪ Became effective August 1, 2019 ▪ Expire on July 31, 2024 • Municipal Stormwater Permittees in Washington State Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 8 • Project Schedule • Watershed Prioritization Process Step 1 Develop list of candidate watersheds 9 watersheds Step 2 Evaluate candidate watersheds 6 candidate watersheds Step 3 Evaluate restoration and moderate restoration watersheds (jurisdiction control, social equity, public feedback, promotes other plans/projects) 4 watersheds Step 4 Select highest priority watershed and catchment 1 highest priority watershed • Refine List of Candidate Watersheds o Excluded Watershed City Control Acres in City Reason for Exclusion Deer Creek 43% 97 Size Lund’s Gulch Creek 4% 55 Size & low City control Southwest Edmonds 13% 72 Size o Retain for Prioritization Watershed City Control Acres in City Edmonds Marsh 77% 1,406 Hall Creek-Lake Ballinger 16% 829 Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks 100% 774 Perrinville Creek 42% 541 Shell Creek 100% 1,340 Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks 86% 476 • Select Metrics o Water Use Importance ▪ Public Recreation Access ▪ Wellhead protection area (10 year time of travel) ▪ Freshwater Salmon and Trout Species Presence ▪ Forage fish nearshore species use ▪ Pocket Estuary – juvenile fish habitat/fish use o Development and Growth ▪ Percent total imperious area ▪ Percent development in riparian buffer ▪ Expected population growth o Water and Habitat Conditions ▪ Listed water quality impairments Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 9 ▪ Water quality concerns from local studies ▪ Fish passage barriers per stream mile • Watershed Management Matrix and Retrofit Strategy • Identify Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds o Six Candidate Watersheds (Step 2) ➔ o Four Restoration And Moderate Restoration Watersheds (Step 3) ▪ Edmonds Marsh ▪ Hall Creek-Lake Ballinger ▪ Northstream-Fruitdale Creeks ▪ Perrinville Creek ▪ Shell Creek ▪ Stilthouse-Terrace Creeks ▪ Edmonds Marsh ▪ Hall Creek-Lake Ballinger ▪ Perrinville Creek ▪ Shell Creek • Identify Priority Watershed o Four Restoration and Moderate Restoration Watersheds (Step 3)) ➔ o One Priority Watershed (Step 4) ▪ Edmonds Marsh ▪ Perrinville Creek Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 10 ▪ Hall Creek-Lake Ballinger ▪ Perrinville Creek ▪ Shell Creek • Next Steps o Identify the following and document in the Implementation Plan: ▪ Retrofit opportunities ▪ Existing projects (with updated cost estimates) ▪ Land management/development strategies ▪ Enhanced stormwater management actions ▪ Proposed implementation schedule/budget/funding sources - Short-term actions (6 years) - Long-term actions (7 to 20 years) Councilmember Paine asked if all watershed are equally important to the NPDES permit. Ms. Dugopolski answered the permit looks at all watersheds, steams and Puget Sound; there are some targeted efforts focused on Puget Sound. Watersheds were considered equally; there is a caveat in the Receiving Waters Assessment Memo that some things like shellfish only show up in Puget Sound and the only watershed draining the other direction was Lake Ballinger which was considered when comparing the watersheds that drain to Puget Sound. Councilmember Paine commented it was important to prioritize and get things underway. She asked if there was a 20-year horizon for some of the longer term projects. Ms. Dugopolski agreed. Councilmember Paine said she was curious to see what the 20-year horizon of projects looked like as the City will need to plan for that. She asked if there would be a report on the longer horizon items. Ms. Dugopolski advised the final report next year would include short-term actions within the next six years as well as long-term actions. Councilmember Teitzel recalled in the presentation to the PPW Committee, there were 23 responses to the survey and 8-10 attended the workshop so approximately 40 which seemed like a very small number to rely on for public input for something this important. He recalled her telling the PPW Committee that was a pretty good response rate, but he felt it was small in a city with a population of 42,000. He asked her to speak to why she felt that was reliable. Ms. Dugopolski said she works with a variety of jurisdictions, ranging from small to very large, and she felt that was a very good response rate. The response depends on the project; typically there is a lot of input from the engineer/consultant community on a stormwater manual update. For just general public input, for a jurisdiction Edmonds’s size, 10-20 was usually good number, so based on other jurisdictions, she felt this was an excellent turnout for both the survey and the workshop. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the description of candidate basins for prioritization; in the description of Shell Creek it states, “The landscape is fragmented by high road density and one major highway (SR- 524), but no fish passage barriers.” He recalled pointing out at the PPW Committee that that was incorrect; there is a 6-foot waterfall at 7th & Glen that complete blocks fish passage. He requested the document be corrected before it is relied upon by the City. Ms. Dugopolski said that language was in the initial receiving water assessment; data was updated between March and June via an addendum. The data on the website has been corrected and updated as well as included in the prioritization tech memo. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the packet is very interesting. She had several targeted questions and assured she did not mean any disrespect. She agreed with Councilmember Teitzel that a sample of 40 people was not a lot, especially since she did not know about it and people often contact her to discuss things. One watershed was selected, Perrinville, which she agreed with as work needs to be done there, but she believed the City should look at all the watersheds. She asked whether doing the SMAP to comply with the NPDES permit meant the City could not look at other watersheds. She attended the Puget Sound Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 11 Partnership Day on the Hill which included presentations on the Infrastructure Bill and Inflation Reduction Act; in the next five years, billions of dollars will be available in grants for estuary restoration, coastal restoration, environment, the Tribes, NOAA, culverts, etc. That is a 5 year window and this is 6- 20 year window and she was trying to figure out how this fit into what she hoped could be achieved with grant funding. Ms. Dugopolski answered one watershed was selected for this effort, but that does not mean there cannot be plans for other watersheds. Other cities have taken a proactive approach and done watershed assessments for a variety of watersheds. One of the good things about a city doing the rest on their own is there is more flexibility as DOE’s requirements do not have to be followed although cities may want to follow a similar pattern. The goal was to identify a watershed to meet the NPDES permit requirement by March. She hoped identifying this watershed would elevate some of the projects to get them done sooner, but that did not mean projects could not be done in other basins or planning done for other basins because obviously there are issues and stormwater retrofits that could be beneficial in other basins as well. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged the limitations on staffing. She was inspired by what she heard at Puget Sound Day on the Hill and the amount of money available. Congressmember Kilmer offered to put together a workshop on writing grants. She clarified the identification of Perrinville is required for the NPDES permit, but the City can work on other watershed if staffing is available. Mr. De Lilla agreed, there is nothing stopping the City from adding as many watersheds as it wanted, it was just figuring out the vehicle the City wanted to use. In his discussions with Councilmember Buckshnis, he was thinking about using the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, but there are other ways as long as there is budget and staffing and a determination made regarding what the funding vehicle will be. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it also need to be added to the CIP/CFP. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are two wells in the Olympic Water & Sewer District (OVWSD), one is Deer Creek. She asked Mr. De Lilla to explain in layman’s terms what the City is doing to help OVWSD. Mr. De Lilla answered the City has coordinated with them to put their aquifer influence zone on the City’s GIS so the City notifies OVWSD about projects within that area. The Edmonds Code has also been updated to follow the new 2019 DOE manual along with supplemental information that sets best management practices they need to follow within those recharge areas to ensure there are no surprises and all the necessary science is followed. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Lynnwood has only about a mile of waterfront and are not part of WRIA 8, but create a tremendous amount of stormwater issues for Perrinville Creek. She asked what the City is doing with Lynnwood to get them to help with issues in Perrinville Creek. Mr. De Lilla answered staff has been in touch with Lynnwood about the SMAP and the 2015 plan to decrease flows into the creek. Both Lynnwood and Edmonds have been working on projects; Lynnwood is willing, it is a question of finding synergies. The cities have discussed teaming up on the update to the 2015 report to make it a better, more cohesive document. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the packet was very informative and she enjoyed reading it. She has concerns with all the watershed and assured staff will hear more about that during the budget process. Council President Olson commented most of her questions had been addressed, like how the watershed was selected and whether that limits the City. She assured the public it did not limit the City, but the City is required to identify a watershed as part of the NPDES permit. She referred to the process of reducing four watersheds to one and asked if there was a prioritization of what watershed to do next if there was more bandwidth or more money. Ms. Dugopolski answered the next one was either Hall Creek-Ballinger or Edmonds Marsh and there were a variety of reasons for one versus the other. A closer look would need to be given to the criteria to determine the next watershed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 12 Council President Olson referred to the chart about equity and asked if that helped determine the priorities. Ms. Dugopolski answered they weighed public input, social equity and retrofit projects which may increase the priority of the Hall Creek-Ballinger because it is higher in social equity factors. 3. BICYCLE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained on March 22, 2022, the city council held a public hearing on the proposed bicycle parking standards and requested two changes, 1) additional standards for e-bikes, and 2) design standards for short term bicycle parking. He reviewed the proposed changes in ECDC 17.120 that mimic the language of electric vehicle charging: • Addition of a definition of Electric bike installed or “E-bike installed” – means bicycle parking that is designed and constructed within five feet of an electrical outlet receptacle reserved for the purpose of electric-assisted bicycle charging on a fully-wired and operational circuit. • Revise Table 17.120-2: Long-Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum # of Spaces Required Number of E-bike Installed Spaces Multiple dwelling units 0.75 per unit 40% of spaces Non-residential Uses 2 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 3 spaces 10% of spaces • Design Standards for short-term bike racks o Bike rack designs acceptable in the City of Edmonds based on guidance from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) o Bike rack designs APBP recommends avoiding due to performance concerns o Alternative designs may be acceptable as approved by the Development Services Director • In second paragraph of 22.110.090 Height bonus, SR 100 changed to SR 104 • In Height Bonus Score Sheet for Westgate Mixed Use Zone, Credit 3, Indoor/Covered Bicycle Storage and Indoor Charging Facility, removed as it is no longer an incentive as it will now be required. Mr. Clugston relayed staff’s recommendation to approve the ordinance in Exhibit 1. Council President Olson questioned removing Credit 3 as an incentive, even though the e-bike bicycle parking will be a requirement. Mr. Clugston answered it should be removed as e-bike parking will now be a requirement. Each new building will be required to provide 40% of their bike parking as e-bike spaces so it is no longer an incentive for a height bonus. There are other incentives in the table a developer can choose from to achieve a height bonus. Council President Olson commented there is concern about the cost of housing and this is an expensive thing to require. She supported requiring it, but wondered if the number of things a developer has to do in addition should be changed. For example, a height bonus to obtain 4 stories requires 8 points in at least 4 categories; should the number of categories be decreased? Mr. Clugston answered the credits required for a height bonus in the WMU zone is a different conversation. This change is specific to the bike parking standards. It may be that that table needs to be changed in the future; it was not looked at as part of this work. Council President Olson said she was interested in having more thought given to that. Mr. Clugston answered those policy level question could be asked as part of the comprehensive plan update. Council President Olson commented in the context of bike parking and having it in the utility space on the sidewalk, it will have a negative impact on aesthetics. She struggles with that when doing projects in her own home, at times function over form has to be considered. She is onboard with this change, but that has been somewhat of a hurdle in her mind. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 13 Councilmember Paine said she was excited to see this because it helps with the City’s climate protection and climate action goals. E-bikes are non-polluting; the next step is safe bike routes. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.120 ECDC, ENTITLED “BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES”; AMENDING ECDC SUBSECTION 16.60.030.B ENTITLED “PARKING, ACCESS, AND BICYCLE STORAGE STANDARDS” AND AMENDING ECDC 22.110.090 WESTGATE MIXED USE HEIGHT BONUS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS. Councilmember Paine commented it is time for these standards. If green factors in the height bonus score sheet need to be evaluated, she preferred they be evaluated with the climate action plan so there is a comprehensive set of choices. This is a good start, she was glad to see it, and would like to have it passed tonight as it has been on the list of things to do since March. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a lot of people call her with concerns. Consideration needs to be given to the City’s demographics and topography and she felt requiring 40% of the bike parking to be e- bike parking was really unreasonable. She has heard a lot of people complaining that even if the City requires it, it won’t be used. She asked whether the suggestion was to wait until the comprehensive plan update to make other changes. Mr. Clugston answered if council disagreed with the requirements in Table 17.120-2 related to e-bikes, a different standards could be discussed. The suggestion to wait until the comprehensive plan update was related to height bonuses in the WMU zone. This revision was only related to bike parking. Councilmember Buckshnis said she supports going green and worries about fossil fuels, but there are other ways to address it such as requiring or offering incentives for solar panels for multifamily building. In looking at the City’s demographics and topography, she did not feel these standards were reasonable. She recalled the only people who spoke at the public hearing were members of a bike advocacy group and no one said the proposed standards were aggressive. She felt 0.75 spaces per unit and 40% of the spaces for e-bikes was too aggressive, but was not sure what a lower requirement should be without further information from the public. She was not ready to approve this as she wanted to have a more thoughtful discussion about what the individuals at the public hearing wanted. It was great the City was implementing the standards and that the code writer’s first task was bike standards, but she felt requiring 40% of the spaces e-bikes was too aggressive; for example, requiring 40 spaces for e-bikes in a 100 unit complex was not reasonable. Councilmember Teitzel said he is excited about things that help the environment. In visiting various neighborhoods in Seattle over the past year, he has seen rental e-bikes laying around, a blight on the neighborhoods. He observed this did not address rental e-bike parking, only privately owned bikes. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Chen said he was pleased to see this come forward and the City heading in the right direction. He understood some councilmembers’ concern about the space requirements and suggested that may need to be adjusted in the future, but this is a good starting point. It is good for the environment just like electric vehicle charging stations. In addition to this, he supported infrastructure such as bike lanes to make the City more accessible in the future. Councilmember Tibbott asked where these standards applied. Mr. Clugston answered the new standards apply to all zones. Existing bike parking language was removed from the CG zone and replaced by the new code as well as the WMU which was tweaked slightly. These standards will apply to new multifamily buildings in multifamily zones, mixed use buildings in CG zones, WMU, and downtown business zones. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 14 Councilmember Tibbott observed 0.75 parking spaces per unit for bicycles sounded like a lot; in a 200 unit complex, that would be 150 spaces for bikes. He asked where staff envisioned those spaces would be, whether it would be in a parking garage, on the roof, etc., and how much space it would require. Mr. Clugston answered this requirement is consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. Typically most bike parking will be internal to the building, probably associated with a parking garage or divided into storage spaces by floor. There are different ways to meet the standards, but he envisioned it would be primarily inside the building. Councilmember Tibbott said he could see this applying to multifamily buildings close to transit and where there are bike lanes where people can ride a mile to access transit, but it is difficult to bike in other places in the City. He asked if it would make sense to stratify where to require 0.75 bike storage spaces per unit. Mr. Clugston answered he did not think so, the benefit is it applies equally everywhere. As bike infrastructure is extended, more people will be using e-bikes as an option. He acknowledged the Main Street hill was difficult on a bike, but it is much easier on an e-bike and the use of e-bikes is increasing. Councilmember Tibbott commented the requirement is forward looking and could be change if the spaces are not utilized the way they are anticipated to be used. He envisioned it would be very useful for multifamily close to transit and also a desirable amenity for the residents. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. 4. CG EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged the public for bringing this forward. Staff is in alignment with the sentiments expressed and relayed other interests in the planned action will be discussed on October 18th. Tonight is an opportunity to talk about the CG zone stepback as discussed in the subarea plan, EIS and the corresponding planned action ordinance. Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed the CG Zone Stepback: • Highway Subarea Planning o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077) ▪ Adopted by reference in the City’s comprehensive plan o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) ▪ CG Zoning o EIS and Planned Action (Ordinance 4079) o VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council • Existing Stepback Regulations – ECDC 16.60.020.D o Building Step-Back When Adjacent to RS Zones. ▪ 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. • Highway 99 Subarea Plan o Recommendation 6.8 ▪ Upper Floor Stepback - Zero upper floor stepback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in RM 1.5, which is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on Highway 99) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 15 - Minimum 10 feet stepback above 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to single family zones. The portion of the building above 55 feet in height shall be stepped back at least 20 feet from a residential zone boundary. - Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies. • Planned Action Mitigation Measures o …the Planned Action stepback standards provide for transitions in building height and bulk between portions of the subarea zoned for the highest intensity uses and adjacent single family zoned areas. o …the Planned Action stepback standards will mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones o The proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback development regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts around the edges of the subarea • Environmental Impact Statement – “adjacent to” o Proposal: Adoption of amendments to development standards to implement the Subarea Plan, including… ▪ Upper story stepbacks adjacent to single family zone o Impacts of Alternative 2: The proposed development regulations include new upper story stepback standards in areas adjacent to single family zones to provide transitions in building height and scale. o Mitigation measures: Under Alternative 2, the proposed new stepback standards would mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones, when combined with the City’s remaining existing development and design standards. • Environmental Impact Statement – “across the street” o Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative: Across the street from single family zones provide eight-foot stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16-footupper story stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet. o Areawide Rezone: For uses across the street from single family zones, the standards call for similar setbacks of 8 feet for portions of buildings 25-55 feet in height, and 16 feet for portions of buildings above 55 feet. o Comp Plan Consistency: ...the Preferred Alternative would encourage development to the fullest extent possible while ensuring that design qualities and amenities enhance the overall character and quality of the Corridor, including upper story stepbacks for buildings adjacent to or across the street from single family zones. o Mitigation Measures: The proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback development regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts around the edges of the subarea. • Proposed Interim Amendment ECDC 16.60 2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than eight feet from the required street setback. That portion of building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the required street setback. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 16 • Recommendation o Adopt emergency interim ordinance o Council public hearing within 60 days o Complete review of Planned Action at October 18 council meeting Ms. McLaughlin said there was commentary that a mitigation measure was missed. In reviewing this issue, although it was discussed, mitigation measures in the EIS were not explicit about the across the street requirement and staff agrees that needs to be fine-tuned. There used to be a transitionary zone that helped to mitigate the blunt line between CG and single family; the stark transition requires the stepback across the street from these larger scale buildings. Councilmember Chen thanked staff for bringing this forward. He agreed there was a disconnect between the City code and the EIS, the fact the code did not address the stepback requirements for development across the street from single family zoning. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CG ZONE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE Councilmember Teitzel asked what happens if development occurs west of Highway 99 in Esperance; for example, would these rules apply if there was a 260 unit building built across the street from a single family neighborhood in Esperance. Ms. McLaughlin answered the City’s zoning code does not apply in Esperance. If the multifamily building was in Edmonds and Esperance was across the street, the ordinance would apply. Mr. Lien agreed, it states across the street from single family zones. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to see this, recalling there were several requests last week and this week requesting a supplemental EIS be performed. She asked if there would be time to do that, specifically on the topic of traffic and stormwater impacts. Ms. McLaughlin answered details associated with the EIS and the validity of requiring additional environmental analysis will be provided on October 18th. Councilmember Buckshnis said she also has issues with updating the EIS and will wait for the information to be provided on October 18th. She thanked staff for the packet which she found very informative. Mr. Lien pointed out the emergency ordinance includes a blank to insert the date for the public hearing. It was agreed to schedule the public hearing on November 15th. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 17 5. REVISIT BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT CODE AMENDMENT (AMD2022-0003) Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is revisiting the BD2 Designated Street Front map as well as the use table that the council approved via an interim ordinance earlier this year. The designated street front is where adjacent parcels have to have a certain depth and a certain floor height for commercial on the ground floor. He displayed the current designated street front map for all the BD zones: • BD Use Table (16.43.020) o Clarify ambiguities o Fill in blanks in uses created by Ord. 3955 o Reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements • Downtown Mixed Commercial (2006-2020 Comprehensive Plan) o “To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses, with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floor of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially designated property, floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use....” o BD code developed to implement comprehensive plan language • Designated Street Front o Map on the left is interim map created by council. Interim is applicable through December 1, 2022 o Map on the right is recommendation from planning board and EDC to extend the blue line to all BD2 parcels to be more consistent with the comprehensive plan. ▪ Commercial on all ground floors to meet existing code standards and cannot have multifamily only buildings adjacent to the extended map areas Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 18 • Market Demand Analysis o Would designated street front restrictions inhibit market demand for residential development? o Is there existing market demand for a mixed commercial building? o Is there market demand for solely commercial buildings? • Market Analysis Area • Commercial Space Demand Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 19 • Multifamily Rental Units Demand o Approximately 425 MF rental units in study area ▪ 56% Two-bedroom ▪ 34% One-bedroom ▪ 10% Studio and Three-bedroom o 1% vacancy rate in the study area ▪ 5 – 6% vacancy rate considered strong and balanced market ▪ Average DOM approximately 20 days • Option 1: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-story o Below grade garage o Residential on ground level, 2nd floor, 3rd floor • Option 2: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-story o Ground level parking and residential o Residential on 2nd and 3rd floor • Option 3: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 2-story o Ground level parking and commercial o Residential on 2nd floor o Photo examples of three-story development with a below grade commercial entrance (307 Bell Street) • Option 4: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 3-story o Ground level parking and commercial o Residential on 2nd and 3rd floor • Otak Market Demand Analysis Takeaways 1. One (1) floor residential over ground floor commercial ➢ Not economically feasible 2. Two (2) floors residential over ground floor commercial ➢ Economically feasible BUT exceeds 30’ height limit 3. Recommended zoning change to get “two over one” ➢ Minor increase of building height 2’ – 5’ • Otak Recommendation o “It is recommended a minor increase in allowed building height be considered in the BD2 zone, as well as any other BD zones similarly affected. This height increase would create more flexibility for a developer to design a 3-story mixed use development. An increase of two (2) to five (5) feet in building height would encourage more 3-story mixed use redevelopment by making a third story feasible on more sites and allowing already feasible sites to be developed in a manner that avoids less desirable subterranean first floor commercial space. This recommended change is intended to make the Designated Street Front commercial requirement as feasible to integrate into a 3-story development as developing an all residential development. Any increases in height should be crafted with code language that limits all BD2 development to no more than 3-stories in height.” • Next Steps o If fully extending designated street front to all BD2 parcels, consider code amendment to increase height to allow three stories to feasibly work in the BD zones during Comprehensive Plan update o Public Hearing – October 25 o Adoption – November 15 Councilmember Paine referred to the slide with the comparison of the two designated street fronts, recalling this began with development that was proposed on 6th Avenue that alerted the community about the aesthetics and loss of commercial. A decision was made to review the process which included obtaining a market analysis and adopting an interim ordinance. A lot of steps have been taken and the issue has morphed from the loss of commercial to considering the designated street front, and review by Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 20 the EDC and the planning board. She referred to the starting point with the interim ordinance in June 2022 which expanded the designated street front to a couple areas and said she felt the proposed permanent BD2 designated street front was a vast overreach. She appreciated having the opportunity to look at this again and planned to walk around to see how the buildings were being used. She wanted to have a collective and thoughtful review and street proofing to look at the business that will be impacted. This is a massive change that will cause big challenges for people because it will be a lot more restrictive. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918, amending Chapters 16.43 and 22.43 ECDC relating to the development regulation and design standards for the downtown BD zones. She recalled former Community Services Director Stephen Clifton utilized Roger Brooks and thousands of citizens were involved in the downtown BD districting. She pointed out building heights were raised in 2013 from 25 feet to 30 feet. She had no interest in adding any more height. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO NOT HAVE ANY HEIGHT INCREASES IN ANY BD ZONES UNTIL WE DO A FULL REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 2011, 2012 AND 2013. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in 2013 a change was made to the 25-foot building height to get rid of the 5-foot stepback and building heights were raised to 30 feet. She did not support doing any height increases until the master plan for the downtown area is reviewed. Council President Olson said she was aware there have been conversations at the planning board and the EDC about the possibility of taking a more holistic look in the context of the comprehensive plan. The consultant recommended that; Edmonds has lower heights than comparable cities like Mukilteo who also have view considerations. She was not saying she was in favor of increasing heights, but she was in favor of vetting it fully and having a full community conversation on that subject, but had no interest in having a community conversation during budget season. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that the conversation about extending the designated street front should not have anything to do with building heights. Councilmember Teitzel recalled during his first term on council in either 2015 or 2016, the council had a robust discussion about reducing floor to ceiling heights in BD1 from 15 feet to 12-13 feet to achieve a third floor in BD1. Mr. Clugston said he was not involved with that project. Councilmember Teitzel continued, if a third floor could be achieved within a 30 foot height limit by reducing the first floor from 15 feet to 12 feet, he asked why that could not be done in BD2. Ms. McLaughlin answered she would need to consult with someone who understands commercial market demands in terms of floor heights. Three stories may be achievable from a purely mathematically standpoint but she would need to research the desirability and leaseability of those spaces. Councilmember Teitzel said he spoke about this with a commercial developer who has a project underway in Edmonds and he thought it could work with 12-foot minimum first floor and even potentially going down to 10 feet. He favored having more discussions with the commercial development industry to determine what could work within that 30-foot envelope. Ms. McLaughlin said the market demand analysis tried to get at that. The below grade access points are some of the ways current developers reach 30 feet which is not desirable from the pedestrian realm at the sidewalk level. While they can achieve it, sometimes the implications are not great. Councilmember Chen said his question was similar to Councilmember Teitzel about reducing the first floor height. There are successful developments where the commercial entrance is a step down. He asked if that would be a viable solution for a developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered for the developer yes, but from an urban design outcome, below grade access detracts from the pedestrian experience. With the comprehensive plan policy around human design, a below grade entrance is not as appealing for access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 21 and it does not provide as much interest as level grade access points. If that outcome continues, it will have a cumulatively impact on the pedestrian environment downtown. Councilmember Chen asked the about the negative impacts of a 2-5 foot height increase and whether it was primarily view blockage. Ms. McLaughlin answered the EDC, planning board and staff agree this should be a comprehensive analysis and the comprehensive plan update is an appropriate time to evaluate that. The recommendation is not to address it tonight, the intent of raising the issue tonight it is under the lens of the adoption of designated street front. The designated street front locks in the requirement for the ground floor to commercial, thereby limiting development potential. If the comprehensive plan update takes two years, she wanted the council to be aware that that is a limiting factor. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE ABSTAINING. Council President Olson commented with boots on the ground and as a longtime attendee of Chamber of Commerce, DEMA and Ed!, she was aware there is a lot of commercial demand in the center of the City. When she drove the entire BD2 map, it seemed like there was an area that was not super business friendly. If that is where there are longer vacancy rates, there may be an area that is not appropriate to be BD2 and it could be changed either during the comprehensive plan or if it is holding up commerce and is not a good place for BD2, making a small tweak in the short term. She recalled the area south of Homeland did not seem appropriate to be BD2. Ms. McLaughlin said staff can evaluate that and bring it back as part of the proposal next time this is before council. 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin advised Planning Manager Kernen Lien is the project manager for the comprehensive plan update. She was hopeful councilmembers have seen some of the branding for the comprehensive plan, Everyone Edmonds, on the streets, in papers, at coffee shops, etc. Staff and the consultant tried hard to get the word out and to gather feedback throughout the summer and she welcomed feedback from the council. In advance of going out to the public, time was spent to develop an inclusive engagement strategy that would attract under-represented people in the community that the City often doesn’t hear from during public processes. She reviewed: • Overview o Comprehensive plan branding o Six week themed visioning outreach o Visioning next step o Comprehensive plan update workplan overview • Branding o PRR consultant engaged to develop: ▪ Branding ▪ Templates ▪ Surveys ▪ Translation services ▪ Review of past City outreach services • Comprehensive plan Visioning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 22 o Six week themed focus on key topics found in the comprehensive plan ▪ Identify ▪ Quality of life ▪ Economic growth ▪ Environment ▪ Culture ▪ Livability and Land use o Approach included ▪ Tabling at local events ▪ Coffee chats in various neighborhood centers ▪ Walk and talks ▪ Panel discussion ▪ Community survey ▪ Weekly article o Marketing and outreach ▪ Project branding ▪ Local media outlets ▪ Ethnic media sources ▪ Project listserv ▪ Yard signs ▪ Multi-language flyers • Outreach performance Metric o Outreach goal to solicit 3,500 comments from the community ▪ Each survey question = 1 comment ▪ Comment recorded at outreach event = 1 comment o Expressly not individuals o Multi-themed surveys o Comments from multiple sources and events • Outreach responses o Received over 8,500 comments o 600+ comments from events o Nearly 7,900 comments from community surveys o 1,072 survey responses ▪ 534 full survey ▪ 538 mini-survey (weekly range 50-135) • Visioning Next Steps o Organize comments by theme and evaluate results o Present key themes to council on October 18th o Develop draft vision statement and community values o Public reveal of vision/values on November 5th (Portchfest Edmonds) o Community feedback (Community Advisory Committee, Survey) o Briefings to the planning board and council o Incorporate into the comprehensive plan process • Collaborative Approach o Core Project Team (Multi-disciplinary team of key City staff) o Community Champions Advisory Committee (use equitable engagement framework to identify) o Boards and commissions advisory committee (representatives from City boards and commissions) o Consultant Strategy (a-la-carte for specific tasks) • Project timeline Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 23 Council President Olson commented the surveys asked if the respondent was a resident or non-resident and what part of the City they lived in. She asked the impact of non-resident feedback. She wanted to hear and consider and build the comprehensive plan on resident impacts but was not as interested in non- residents’ input. Ms. McLaughlin answered if someone worked in the City, but did not live in the City, their input was equally as valuable. Council President Olson agreed. Ms. McLaughlin said that information is not available to decipher at this stage, whether it was a resident or non-resident and perhaps a percentage basis could be done on non-resident feedback. If the non-resident feedback is substantial enough, consideration could be given to weighting it differently. At this point it is a sentiment survey, very high level to get sentiments, values, and how people feel about the City; it is still relevant to understand why a non-resident visits Edmonds such as do they come for the arts. Council President Olson agreed it was important for economic development, but not regarding housing policies for example. Ms. Laughlin answered it is impossible to decipher that at this point in the survey and that bridge can be crossed once the discussion gets into more details about housing policies. Council President Olson said another thing she was not sure she liked was the board and commission advisory group and suggested considering more of a town hall approach where all the members of boards and commissions participate so there is a more robust town hall interaction. She felt it would be great to have everyone there and did not think the numbers would be too massive. Ms. McLaughlin observed Council President Olson was thinking about a more infrequent town hall event. She was not opposed to a town hall where all the boards and commissions participate and that could absolutely be penciled into the project schedule. The purpose of an advisory group is work sessions to dive deeper into issues that could not be covered in a briefing. There would still be updates to the boards and commissions, but they would be less frequent than the advisory group which would represent the boards and commissions. The goal would be for the representative to speak on behalf of the larger board/commission group and provide more efficiency to the process. Council President Olson said she was still wrapping her head around who that one person would be. Ms. McLaughlin said the board/commission would choose their representative. Councilmember Teitzel commented this is exciting stuff, the holy grail of the planning process. He liked that the City had surveys in different languages to get input from the diverse community. He asked how successful that was in garnering responses to the survey. Ms. McLaughlin answered she took the equitable framework to the diversity commission and the planning board and often gets the question whether it’s working. It will not happen overnight there were not a large number of surveys submitted in different languages. That effort to engage in multiple different ways and building trust over time must continue and she guaranteed if that continued consistently throughout the process and there is an advisory committee of community champions, there will be meaningful connections. Councilmember Teitzel asked what type of outreach was done, for example, did the City contact Korean churches. Ms. McLaughlin answered absolutely. Councilmember Teitzel recognized there was more work to be done. Ms. McLaughlin was very hopeful about that and was excited about this body of work. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Olson’s concern about having one advisory group and felt it would be advantageous to have the group together because everyone has different opinions. For example, she relies on her scientist friends; similarly, EDC members have different skill sets. She felt it would be advantageous to take a more holistic approach with the boards and commissions and encouraged staff to consider that, noting councilmembers appoint board and commission members. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 24 Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the limitation of 140 characters or a tweet to answer a survey. Basically the City received 8,500 tweets; 140 characters is approximately 20-35 words. She understood why people were frustrated with the surveys and the limited length of their response and asked how the 140 character limit was decided. Ms. McLaughlin said it is a balance between providing open ended questions which gives the public the most ability to answer in an open way, but the number of characters had to be limited to process 8,500 comments. If comments were multiple paragraphs long, staff may not be able to share information until next year as it would also be difficult to read, catalog and consider each of those comments. It is a high level survey; the best feedback for people who may be frustrated is to get on the City’s listserv and continue to be engaged. There will be much more detailed conversations where their feedback will be welcomed. Right now the goal is sentiments, high level, adjectives, what resonates with people about Edmonds, etc. She encouraged people to stay involved in the process. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the 8,500 comments were from 8,500 different people. She has heard that some people came to the open house and put 20 dots in one area just to skew the results. Ms. McLaughlin referred to slide 5 which stated it was not 8,500 individuals; each response to a survey comment was counted as one comment. There were no open houses held and there was no exercise with dots. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has heard that a lot of people were frustrated with the process even though she thought staff was doing great job of getting out there. She was unclear why people were frustrated other than they wanted more time to be more thoughtful in their conversation of how they envision Edmonds and saying it in 140 characters was very difficult. She looked forward to the process and was interested in reading the individual comments. She said one of the reasons there were not many comments in different languages may be because it was hard to express their thoughts in 140 characters. Councilmember Tibbott liked the variety of approaches that were tried, commenting it was great to get that much input. He recalled saying a visioning process often starts like a child’s coloring book, with an outline and the 140 character responses begin to fill in detail but the addition of color and definition will continue to develop a vision. He summarized staff was doing a great job coloring in the picture. He liked the idea of all boards and commissions in a town hall setting, but a work group with representatives from boards and commission would also be very effective. He hoped that would be done and representatives selected who have the time to participate. He was impressed with project as it is proceeding and recognized that it will take two years. It is a very important time for the City and this is a great start. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for all the work they have been doing. She attended one of the meetings and found very interesting. She recalled during Ms. McLaughlin’s interview process one of questions was how will you do engagement. Ms. McLaughlin said she would go out to the community and be everywhere and then once she collected information, she would go back out to the community to ensure the City was getting right and that it would be an iterative process which is what is being done. Edmonds gets a lot of mileage from its volunteers; it is grueling to be a volunteer in Edmonds because they do a lot of work. This is exactly what the council has been asking for in terms of outreach; Ms. McLaughlin has been everywhere just like the PROS Plan was. She understood limiting comments to 140 characters because it forces people to be concise. She looked forward to the process. Councilmember Chen appreciated the way staff approached the idea of Everyone Edmonds; One Edmonds was his idea. He also appreciated the outreach efforts that included different languages, acknowledging there was room for improvement to make that effort successful. People who do not speak English may not be as engaged. He had some success going to churches, grocery stores, Ranch 99 Market, Boo Han, etc. He also suggested the high school and other schools as another venue. Over 125 languages are spoken in the Edmonds School District; he suggested providing materials for the students to take home. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 25 Mayor Nelson thanked the applicants for the youth commission who were interviewed prior to the council meeting. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce for hosting the Main Street Commons update at the Waterfront Center. Four of the six businesses already have lease agreements. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Paine thanked everyone for all the great stuff happening in Edmonds during the past week. She commented the youth commission interviews were great. For all who observe Yom Kippur , she hoped they had a contemplative evening. Councilmember Tibbott said he also participated in the youth commission interviews and was impressed by their interest and what they bring to the City. He looked forward to hearing more from the youth commission in the coming year. With regard to the emergency ordinance regarding the CG zone, Councilmember Tibbott reported he met with some citizens at a coffee shop to discuss their concerns. It was obvious it was important to pass the emergency moratorium because the impact on the neighborhoods will be significant. He was hopeful that the process of thinking about this more carefully would not only improve the building design standards, but would also look at the streetscape and opportunities for open space in those areas. This is a very important issue and he was glad the City was working on it as it will have a big impact on the Highway 99 area. Councilmember Buckshnis said she appreciated all the presentations today. She was hopeful the City could obtain some of the infrastructure and inflation reduction money mentioned at the Puget Sound Partnership Sound Days on Hill. Councilmember Buckshnis announced she will be hosting a series of town halls, recalling the last town halls she held were when Mayor Nelson was a councilmember. The town halls will be October 10th from 6-8 p.m. upstairs at the Waterfront Center, October 20th at Mel and Mia’s in Perrinville from 5-7 p.m. and October 24th at the Edmonds Lutheran Church from 6-8 p.m. She reminded of the Halloween Howl this weekend at the dog park starting at 11 a.m.; there will be a silent auction with gift cards and judging at 1 p.m. Council President Olson announced the deadline to submit an application for the vacant council Position 7 seat is tomorrow, Wednesday, October 5 at 2 p.m. Applicants for the Position 1 vacancy who want to be considered for the Position 7 vacancy can send an email to Nicholas.Falk@Edmondswa.gov stating their interest in applying for the Position 7 vacancy and stating their Position 1 application and interview should used again for the Position 7 vacancy. Those who did not complete an application for Position 1 and are interested in applying for Position 7, should fill out an application and it submit by 2 p.m. tomorrow to Nicholas.Falk@Edmondswa.gov. Councilmember Chen pointed out on the City org chart on page 11 of the 2023 budget book, the citizens of Edmonds are at the top. The City’s planning department live the spirt of the org chart and are responsive to citizens’ concerns, evidenced not only by their reaction to the BD2 zoning but also the CG moratorium. Planning staff reacted to citizens concerns even on Highway 99, the Gateway Area, living the spirit of One Edmonds and Everyone Edmonds. He was glad to see the City was truly working cohesively as one. He acknowledged there were definitely opportunities for improvement. He welcomed Public Works Oscar Antillon and looked forward to working with him. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 26 Councilmember Teitzel reported until September 6th when he was selected to fill the vacancy on the council, he was the chair of Edmonds Museum Summer Market Committee. They are very proud of the market which runs from May through October. This Saturday is the final market this year. Councilmember Teitzel reported last week he reported on the council taskforce that was formed to look at the city attorney contract. Council President Olson signed a contract with Madrona Law Group last week for a legal review of the contract extension proposed by Lighthouse. The results of that review were submitted today just prior to the council meeting so he had not had an opportunity to read it yet. He will read it this evening and share it with the two councilmembers on the taskforce. There is a lot of work to be done to do the proper due diligence to ensure the City is getting a good deal and the expected quality via the arrangement with Lighthouse. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 p.m.